The SB5 bill limiting collective bargaining rights of public employees has been signed by Governor Kasich.  Since a statewide referendum to repeal the bill is very likely, this seems like the right time to give SB5 its own thread.  Please post all news and comments about SB5 here instead of in the Governor Kasich thread.

 

Kasich signs SB5, but fight isn't over

Petition drive under way for statewide referendum to repeal law in November

Friday, April 1, 2011 

By Joe Hallett, Joe Vardon and Jim Siegel

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

When Ohio Gov. John Kasich's pen touched paper on Senate Bill 5 last night, nary a protester was found outside the Statehouse.  But make no mistake, the fight over collective-bargaining rights for public employees will continue.

 

Kasich, a Republican, put his signature on GOP-produced legislation that removes health care and benefits from collective bargaining, makes it illegal to strike and replaces automatic pay increases with a merit-based pay system for the state's 360,000 public workers.

 

Even before Kasich signed the bill, labor groups and their Democratic allies had begun to organize the drive to collect at least 231,149 signatures of registered voters to place a referendum to repeal the bill on the Nov. 8 statewide ballot.

 

READ MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/04/01/copy/kasich-signs-sb5-but-fight-isnt-over.html

Legal challenge inevitable as well...

Conservative group denies it masterminded drive to restrict public employee unions

Published: Sunday, April 03, 2011, 5:54 AM    Updated: Sunday, April 03, 2011, 3:11 PM

By Sabrina Eaton, The Plain Dealer The Plain Dealer

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A nonprofit Washington-DC based association for conservative state legislators is being touted as the brains behind efforts in Ohio and other states to curb the collective bargaining powers of public employees.

Despite claims from labor leaders like AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and bloggers that the 2,000-member American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is behind Ohio's Senate Bill 5 and similar efforts in other states, the group says it has nothing to do with the measures.

 

"Accusations of ALEC secretly meeting with governors, ALEC running and coordinating ground campaigns against public employee unions, and ALEC wanting to eliminate public employee unions are first and foremost not true," says a statement from ALEC spokeswoman Reagan Weber.

 

read more at: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/04/conservative_group_denies_it_m.html

Ohio's Senate Bill 5 will bring dramatic changes

Published: Sunday, April 03, 2011, 5:55 AM    Updated: Sunday, April 03, 2011, 3:11 PM

By Mark Naymik, The Plain Dealer The Plain Dealer

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio Gov. John Kasich and fellow Republican leaders delivered on their pledge last week to pass a collective-bargaining bill that dramatically reduces the power of some 350,000 unionized public workers, including teachers, police officers and firefighters.

 

Likewise, opponents of the bill, led by Democratic and union leaders, followed through on their promise to launch a campaign to kill the bill with a statewide referendum.

 

The contentious Statehouse debate that led to Kasich's signing of the bill Thursday night drew thousands of energetic protesters to Columbus, forced a splintering within the GOP ranks and set off some rare legislative maneuvering. With the ink now drying, this battle is over.

 

Read more at:

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/04/ohios_senate_bill_5_will_bring.html

Union-Bashing, Now in Ohio:

This is Ohio’s new concept of how to deal fairly with its public employees

The New York Times

 

Make them an offer, and if they don’t accept it, impose it anyway. There will be no appeal or arbitration. And unions will no longer be able to negotiate their health-care benefits or require the payment of dues from members.

 

The bill containing these provisions was signed into law last week by Gov. John Kasich, another of the Republicans who has misinterpreted his election last year as a mandate to try to demolish union rights.

 

The best-known fight over public unions was in Wisconsin, where a law ending their collective-bargaining rights has been temporarily stopped by a court order. But, as Steven Greenhouse reported in The Times, the Ohio law is actually much tougher.

 

It cuts the negotiating rights of police officers and firefighters, not just non-uniformed employees, and it allows cities and school boards to simply impose their final bargaining offer on workers if they cannot reach a negotiated agreement. Under those circumstances, it is hard to imagine why any city would even bother negotiating, and that, in fact, seems to be the point. Full editorial at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/opinion/05tue2.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211

So we're no longer just posting news or updates on this topic, we're posting "opinion" pieces here as well?

So we're no longer just posting news or updates on this topic, we're posting "opinion" pieces here as well?

 

Go ahead and show me where you gave the same response to the barrage of op-eds littering the Obama thread for the past 2 years.

"Obama Presidency" thread is full of commentary from day 1 and title doesn't specifically say "NEWS"

 

And I'll take your non-answer as a "yes" to my question

Sorry.... didn't realize the question was directed at me.  I thought it was rhetorical.  If you really need an answer, then yes.... that appears to me to be an op-ed.  I'm sure you could've have done some research on your own to figure out what is and what is not an op-ed.  Nevertheless, glad I could be of some help.

Question wasn't directed at you at all, but thanks for stepping up to answer it.  This is going to be fun.

 

George Meany, the legendary AFL-CIO president during the Cold War, opposed the right to bargain collectively with the government.  Why? Because unlike in the private economy, a public union has a natural monopoly over government services. An industrial union will fight for a greater share of corporate profits, but it also knows that a business must make profits or it will move or shut down. The union chief for teachers, transit workers or firemen knows that the city is not going to close the schools, buses or firehouses.

 

This monopoly power, in turn, gives public unions inordinate sway over elected officials. The money they collect from member dues helps to elect politicians who are then supposed to represent the taxpayers during the next round of collective bargaining. In effect union representatives sit on both sides of the bargaining table, with no one sitting in for taxpayers.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704615504576172701898769040.html?KEYWORDS=FRED+SIEGEL

 

And as we are seeing in Ohio and Wisconsin, these workers were given their rights to collectively bargain by the states, which are now taking them away.  I would like to see Ford try to do that.

 

I simply don't get it this attitude though.  It wasn't but a few years ago that the popular consensus was that firefighters, cops, and teachers weren't getting paid enough.  Now, they are the crux of our local budgetary woes.... allegedly. 

 

And anyone who even tries to suggest that the current bargaining system favors the employees certainly has never actively participated in the process (ie, at the bargaining table).  If what they say is true, then all these civil servants would be getting paid a helluva lot more than they do.  The current contracts would not be set with 0% wage increases, concessions in manpower, and greater cost sharing in health care, among many, many other terms more favorable to the employ.  But I guarantee you won't read that in the WSJ.

these workers were given their rights to collectively bargain by the states, which are now taking them away.  I would like to see Ford try to do that.

 

I simply don't get it this attitude though.  It wasn't but a few years ago that the popular consensus was that firefighters, cops, and teachers weren't getting paid enough. 

 

Ford can relocate it's production to a non-union facility or out of the country all together.  Not an option with public service so I don't know why you made that connection.

 

Pointing out discrepancies in pay doesn't really add up either.  Assume a 20% lower salary for a public employee vs private sector employee.  Add in Social Security deductions, healthcare deductions, 401k deductions...  the difference quickly shrinks.  Yes public employees still pay for benefits and pension, but nowhere near the level private employees do.  Add in generous vacation/sick/personal/holiday time off and it's about a draw between who makes more.  You really don't have to search too far to find studies showing public sector employees actually are compensated much more than their private sector counterparts.

States can totally do away and privatize any public service they want. So the connection is most certainly there, even if you can't see it.  As a matter of fact, SB5 has an on point provision explicitly making that a management right.  I suggest you read the bill before further delving into this conversation.  Op-eds from the WSJ are only going to provide you with the info you want to read.

 

Based on your second paragraph, I guess you are appropriately placed in the crowd who thinks that cops, firfighters, and teachers are paid too much.  And you can't compare public school teacher comp with their private school counterparts.  Private school teachers always will be paid less.  If you drop public school pay, private school pay would simply mirror that reduction.  I don't know who you are using to compare cops and firefighters to in the private sector.

I read everything on both sides of SB 5 thank you, not just WSJ op eds.  I post them here to counter the pro labor articles which were posted and only tell half the facts.

 

I don't think cops or teachers or firefighters are paid too much.  I simply pointed out that they aren't as underpaid as it might seem, and that salary isn't the sole measure of compensation.  Besides, salary is not the only focus of SB 5.  There are other measures which many others agree with including merit based raises instead of simple seniority.  Furthermore, there are highly qualified people waiting for years to get into any of these professions.  What does that tell you?  Not exactly typical of a profession which is underpaid.

 

I'm calling it early and saying the referendum will get on the ballot but won't get enough votes to pass.  Imagine the commercials for both sides.  It's going to be very ugly.

You think SB5 requires merit based raises?  You think the current law requires raises based solely on senoirity?  Seems you are stuck on the misinformation highway.

^ according to the PD article, merit based pay raises are part of the equation. I haven't read the actual legislation. Are you saying that's incorrect?

 

• Collective bargaining: Restricts collective bargaining to wage issues. Under the former law, public workers had a right to collectively bargain for wages, benefits such as health care and pensions and specific workplace conditions, including staffing levels at fire stations or building assignments for teachers. Under the new law most public workers will be able to bargain only on their pay.

 

• Safety equipment: Allows police and fire officials to negotiate for safety equipment. This is an exception to the above provision, which was added by the House. It concerns only equipment directly related to the safety of the officer or firefighter, like bulletproof vests and shields. It does not include other equipment, such as computers in squad cars.

 

• Traffic tickets: Prohibits linking patrol officer evaluations to how many citations they write. Patrol officers in some police agencies and the state highway patrol were evaluated and given pay increases, in part, according to how many traffic violations they issued to motorists. That can no longer be a basis for performance evaluation under the new law.

 

• Health care: Requires public workers to pay at least 15 percent of their health care coverage. The goal here is to force unionized workers to pay more for their health care costs and thereby lower that expense for local and state governments. Supporters of the law say that private sector workers on average pay about 23 percent of their health care costs.

 

• Merit-based pay for teachers: Ohio's 146,000 primary and secondary school teachers will be evaluated largely based on how their students did on standardized testing along with other more subjective criteria. By April 1 of each year, teachers would be evaluated based on their students' test scores, their licensure level, whether they had achieved "highly qualified" teaching status, at least two 30-minute or more observations of them by administrators as well as other criteria selected by local school boards. Decisions about which teachers are laid off or fired and what kind of pay they would receive would be based on this evaluation process.

 

• Pension pickups: Ohio governments cannot offer so called "pension pickups" where the governmental unit pays a portion of the 10 percent employees are supposed to contribute to their pensions. The law does not raise the employee contributions above the standard 10 percent, nor does it reduce the contribution levels of the state as an employer. However, a pension reform bill being considered in the House does increase contributions levels for pensions for teachers, police officers, firefighters and state highway patrolmen. Once again, it is not a part of SB 5.

 

• Binding arbitration: Eliminates binding arbitration and creates an alternative allowing contracts in some cases to go to voters if they cost more. If governmental employees in a union cannot reach an agreement with management on a new contract, a fact-finder must be appointed to make recommendations. If a majority of the union members or management reject the fact-finder's recommendations, the legislative body that oversees the government workers (a city council, for example) must hold a vote within 30 days of the current contract expiring to choose between the "last, best" offers of the union and management. If the legislative body chooses to do nothing, the last best offer of management becomes the new contract. In cases where the higher-cost offer is selected by the legislative body, the chief financial officer of the governmental body determines whether new revenue is needed to fulfill the offer that has been chosen. If so, there is a procedure by which signatures can be collected and both "last best" offers placed on the ballot for voters to chose between.

 

• Decertification: Makes it easier to end union representation by lowering the percentage of workers needed to trigger such a move. In the past, a majority of employees was needed to back a petition to decertify a union. Now, a vote by only 30 percent of workers is needed.

 

• Payroll deductions: Prohibits any public employer from providing an automatic payroll deduction for contributions to a union political action committee.

 

• Dues: Employees who do not want to join a union -- but nonetheless still receive the same wages and benefits spelled out in the union contract -- no longer have to pay "fair share" dues. Fair-share dues are based only on the cost of bargaining a contract and are less than full dues.

 

• Strikes: Prohibits public union workers from striking, though workers who strike illegally will not be subjected to jail time because lawmakers dropped proposed contempt of court penalties from an earlier version of the bill.

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/04/ohios_senate_bill_5_will_bring.html

There is a difference.... a big difference.... in considering 'merit' as a factor for pay raises and 'merit-based' pay raises.  Not so sure about the teaching profession, but this was already certainly part of the equation of cops and firefighters, who are paid largely based on rank.  Rank is determined through promotional examination.  Such examinations are required by the Ohio Constitution to be open and competitive.  Senoirity points are added on to the final score in some communities but are not the sole determining factor as gottaplan incorrectly suggested.  Any system, agreement, etc. which (notwithstanding SB5) provides that raises be based on "simple seniority" is violative of the Ohio Constitution and always has been.  It is talking points run amuck which has led to this confusion.  Do you think when Cleveland Heights needs a new police chief, they are required to just promote the most senior member from the lower ranks?

 

Again, I'm not an expert, but from what I've seen/ read it does not appear that this will change for safety forces. The merit based system (however that is interpreted) is being enacted with teachers. I know there has been discussion as to how you satisfactorily review teacher performance, but the fact is that all job performance, regardless of the position, is subject to being evaluated. Devil's in the details for sure, but on it's face, I don't have a problem with this.

 

With regards to police / firefighters, I don't know that the current system for evaluating / promoting is going to be turned on its ear. Maybe it will be modified, but it seems like the intent is where the system is not broken, fixes need not be applied. Certainly none of this legislation can run afoul of the Ohio Constitution, which is where you've pointed out the controls for this system are laid out.

 

That said, one of my best friends is a firefighter in NY, and he called me not too long ago all worked up about this legislation, so clearly there are concerns. I haven't read up enough to have decided definitively, but it seems to me, at least upon first review, that many of these changes are fairly reasonable.

For police and fire, the "merit" language in the new law is being applied to layoffs and RIFs, not pay raises.  At present, the state law is first in, first out for layoffs.  Meaning, the City must lay off the least senoir member of each rank first and must recall the most senoir member of each rank if recalls are made.  This would have led to concerns for sure, probably just like injecting the notion of "merit" as a factor for determining teachers salaries.  But it would have hardly been a deal breaker.

 

That is the thing that I think is totally lost on too many people.  The unions were ready, willing and able to sit down and make concessions.  There are several provisions of RC Ch. 4117 which certainly can and should be revised and improved.  SB5 does indeed make some common sense changes.  Nobody disputes that.  But Kasich and his chronies from southern Ohio (see Rep Jones) had no such interest in compromise.  The last thing they wanted was a handshake with the unions.  They wrote the bill the way they wanted to write the bill, without any input from the unions, the democrats in the GA, or the clear majority of Ohio voters.

 

Its all a waste of time anyways.  They stepped too far.  If the unions lose at the ballot, they will win in the courts..... at least on the most objectionable provisions.

I'm not sure I'm following your concern laid out in paragraph 1. I think you're saying that right now the fire / rehire system is based on seniority. The proposed SB5 system would introduce the as yet undefined concept of 'merit' into that equation. However, I'm presuming that these employee moves are not done by some state bureaucrat, but rather by the officer in charge of that precinct / district. I'm going to presume that as a commanding officer, etc. that person is going to be familiar enough with his/her reports that they can effectively implement a merit based system when deciding who to let go, and who to bring back. Seniority should certainly be part of that equation, but I can't believe that everyone wants it purely based on that one variable.

 

If much of the legislation is reasonable, and includes concessions that the union would have made anyway, where is the pure outrage coming from? If it's merely leveled at the way it was passed, well, then I don't have a lot of sympathy. I want to know the specific provisions that are sparking concern.

 

(BTW..I'm not expecting you to list them all here. I'll reach out to by unionized buddies and get their perspective. )

Analysis: Ohio union law could save state $191M

 

COLUMBUS - Ohio government analysts are estimating a new collective bargaining law could save state government about $191 million each year – a report greeted with skepticism by labor leaders and Democrats.

 

More than $1 billion in annual savings are generated by the legislation once its impact on school districts, townships and other local governments is factored in, according to a study released Monday by the state’s Department of Administrative Services. The estimates were based on parts of the law dealing with health care costs and wages.

 

Link to the article: http://communitypress.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20110404/NEWS01/104050307/1196/NEWS03/Analysis-Ohio-union-law-could-save-state-191M?odyssey=nav|head

 

Link to the Ohio DAS report itself: http://news.cincinnati.com/assets/AB17257344.PDF

^^It would take awhile to list all the provisions which are highly objectionable.  It is a 300 page bill which was.... ummmmmm..... rammed, crammed, jammed, bammed, whammed down our f-in throats.  I covered many of my concerns in the Kasich thread if you want to go back and review.

 

A few samples would be:

 

- I think if the people of Cleveland Heights want to pick up >85% of the health care costs for their cops, firefighters and teachers, it really is none of the State's business

- I think if the people of Cleveland Heights want to enter into a mutually agreed upon dispute resolution procedure with their cops, firefighters, and teachers (leaving the legislative body out of that messy battle), it really is none of the State's business.

- Same goes for pension pick-up, sick leave, vacation time, or any other provision where the folks at the Statehouse in Columbus desire to impose their big government infinite wisdom on the people of the various local home rule communities of this State.

- I think having the legislative body of the community resolve contract impasses by selecting between last, best offers from each side is awful policy and will lead to corruption

- I don't think that 'neutrals' (SERB, arbitrators, conciliators, fact-finders) should be, for lack of a better term, neutered in the manner the drafters of SB5 would like them to be. 

- I don't think that past practice (a universal concept in labor relations) should be eliminated as a subject of possible union greivances.

- I think that members of a police and fire department, especially if the City has no objection, should be free to associate among the non-management level ranks.  This is especially true in the fire service where solidarity within the fire house is key to harmony

- I don't think the State should eliminate the provision of Ch. 4117 which states that the chapter's goal is to promote orderly and constructive relationships between public employers and their employees.

 

 

The reason you are not following any concern of mine in paragraph 1 is because I did not lay one out.  But the police and fire unions will object to this change because chronnyism and corruption have a long history in para-military organizations which base pay, rank, etc. on subjective opinion of 'merit.'  This was a big driving force for the passage of the constitutional provision I mentioned above.

"Teaching to the test" is already a big enough problem.  Expect it to only get worse with this bill.

"Teaching to the test" is already a big enough problem.  Expect it to only get worse with this bill.

 

Of course it will.  But will it be more or less of a problem than teachers who currently keep their jobs over younger counterparts based on seniority despite lack of effort/enthusiasm/creativity in their daily approach?  That's the real question.

gottaplan +1.

 

Hts: If Cleveland Heights' decisions really had no impact whatsoever on the state government's finances, then maybe.  But what would happen, in your world, to a municipal government that constantly promised more than its taxpayers were willing to support?

"Teaching to the test" is already a big enough problem.  Expect it to only get worse with this bill.

 

Of course it will.  But will it be more or less of a problem than teachers who currently keep their jobs over younger counterparts based on seniority despite lack of effort/enthusiasm/creativity in their daily approach?  That's the real question.

 

It's only going to get worse, regardless of the age of the teacher in question.  Even more so now the younger ones with enthusiasm and creativity (which is already stifled by standardized testing) are going to be forced to mind-numbingly engage their students in almost pointless rote learning.

 

This bill is an absolute slap in the face to teachers, firefighters, and police officers.

Analysis: Ohio union law could save state $191M

 

COLUMBUS - Ohio government analysts are estimating a new collective bargaining law could save state government about $191 million each year – a report greeted with skepticism by labor leaders and Democrats.

 

More than $1 billion in annual savings are generated by the legislation once its impact on school districts, townships and other local governments is factored in, according to a study released Monday by the state’s Department of Administrative Services. The estimates were based on parts of the law dealing with health care costs and wages.

 

Link to the article: http://communitypress.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20110404/NEWS01/104050307/1196/NEWS03/Analysis-Ohio-union-law-could-save-state-191M?odyssey=nav|head

 

Link to the Ohio DAS report itself: http://news.cincinnati.com/assets/AB17257344.PDF

Savings fostered by collective-bargaining law anything but a sure thing

Latest estimate of $1.1 billion flawed, expert contends

Tuesday, April 5, 2011  - 03:07 AM

By Jim Siegel, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

The Kasich administration says local governments could save nearly $1.1 billion from the health-care and longevity-pay provisions of Senate Bill 5, but a contract expert says the methodology used to calculate the number for school workers is flawed.

 

"It's an estimation," said Pieter Wykoff, spokesman for the Department of Administrative Services, which put together the analysis.  "People keep asking us what kind of savings is out there, and we're just trying to come up with a way to figure that out."

 

READ MORE: http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/04/05/copy/savings-fostered-by-law-anything-but-a-sure-thing.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

^Nice talking points by the Kasich admin, Salaries will not be cut by SB5, take home pay will be but salaries won't be.

 

My personal problem with this bill is that it is not a reform bill in the sense that it wanted to correct the issues with collective bargaining, it was an idealogically driven anti-union designed to neuter the collective-bargaining rights, masquerading as a reform bill. If you are going to go Anti-union have the balls to come out and end collective bargaining with state employees. Employee compensation is a three legged stool of pay, retirement benefits and health benefits. This bill took away two of those three legs off of the bargaining table.

gottaplan +1.

 

Hts: If Cleveland Heights' decisions really had no impact whatsoever on the state government's finances, then maybe.  But what would happen, in your world, to a municipal government that constantly promised more than its taxpayers were willing to support?

 

We have this thing in Cleveland Heights called local elections.  The taxpayers would vote them out. 

"Teaching to the test" is already a big enough problem.  Expect it to only get worse with this bill.

 

Of course it will.  But will it be more or less of a problem than teachers who currently keep their jobs over younger counterparts based on seniority despite lack of effort/enthusiasm/creativity in their daily approach?  That's the real question.

 

gottaplan -1

 

It will be much more of a problem.  Older teachers lacking "effort/enthusiasm/creativity in their daily approach" isn't nearly as big of a problem as many people love to claim these days.  But these stifling standardized tests are helping to ensure that moving forward nearly all teachers (regardless of age) will lack "effort/enthusiasm/creativity in their daily approach".

 

EDIT: Sorry, I just read Clevelander17's post and realized he pretty much said the exact same thing.  At least my post reset your Karma points to 0.

gottaplan +1.

 

Hts: If Cleveland Heights' decisions really had no impact whatsoever on the state government's finances, then maybe.  But what would happen, in your world, to a municipal government that constantly promised more than its taxpayers were willing to support?

 

We have this thing in Cleveland Heights called local elections.  The taxpayers would vote them out. 

 

Yes, but what about the contract already signed that was the cause of the voters kicking the board to the curb?

^^It would take awhile to list all the provisions which are highly objectionable.  It is a 300 page bill which was.... ummmmmm..... rammed, crammed, jammed, bammed, whammed down our f-in throats.  I covered many of my concerns in the Kasich thread if you want to go back and review.

 

A few samples would be:

 

- I think if the people of Cleveland Heights want to pick up >85% of the health care costs for their cops, firefighters and teachers, it really is none of the State's business

- I think if the people of Cleveland Heights want to enter into a mutually agreed upon dispute resolution procedure with their cops, firefighters, and teachers (leaving the legislative body out of that messy battle), it really is none of the State's business.

- Same goes for pension pick-up, sick leave, vacation time, or any other provision where the folks at the Statehouse in Columbus desire to impose their big government infinite wisdom on the people of the various local home rule communities of this State.

- I think having the legislative body of the community resolve contract impasses by selecting between last, best offers from each side is awful policy and will lead to corruption

- I don't think that 'neutrals' (SERB, arbitrators, conciliators, fact-finders) should be, for lack of a better term, neutered in the manner the drafters of SB5 would like them to be. 

- I don't think that past practice (a universal concept in labor relations) should be eliminated as a subject of possible union greivances.

- I think that members of a police and fire department, especially if the City has no objection, should be free to associate among the non-management level ranks.  This is especially true in the fire service where solidarity within the fire house is key to harmony

- I don't think the State should eliminate the provision of Ch. 4117 which states that the chapter's goal is to promote orderly and constructive relationships between public employers and their employees.

 

 

The reason you are not following any concern of mine in paragraph 1 is because I did not lay one out.  But the police and fire unions will object to this change because chronnyism and corruption have a long history in para-military organizations which base pay, rank, etc. on subjective opinion of 'merit.'  This was a big driving force for the passage of the constitutional provision I mentioned above.

 

Relating to your first three bullet points, I'd be inclined to agree that local communities should be provided the right to contract with their public employees as they see fit, provided they have to pay for any overages above state level agreements with local money. If CH wants to pay their police / firefighters more, they should be able to agree to that.

 

I also agree that having a legislative body decide disputes is a somewhat cumbersome method. Even more so is the provision that certain disputes would go to voters. The cost / time effort  of putting a dispute item on a ballot and then educating the voters on that ballot, is inefficient at best. I'm guessing there was a desire to have the people who are ultimately responsible for paying for these benefits making the decison. What was the concern with arbitration? Was there a feeling that they sided with labor too much? I'm guessing past practices died with the loss of arbitration, as that was a tool they used.

 

I don't have an opinion on the last two items, as I don't know enough about them. Ultimately, it sounds like it's an imperfect piece of legislation...like every piece of legislation. I don't like the way it was passed, but it's here, and it could have been worse. I'm just not as irate about this as I thought I might be.

 

 

^^What board?  You mean city council?  Unless you advocate the ability of political subdivisions to unilaterally breach contracts, then you just have to accept that they are bound by those terms for the duration of the contract.  Most CBA's are either 2 or 3 years in duration..... but lately, due to uncertainty with the recession, we are seeing more and more 1 year contracts and/or reopener clauses on issues such as wages and health care.

What was the concern with arbitration? Was there a feeling that they sided with labor too much? I'm guessing past practices died with the loss of arbitration, as that was a tool they used.

 

You are muddling two different issues here. 

 

1.  Contract greivances (i.e. the employer is not adhering to the contract) are commonly brought to final resolution through binding arbitration.  It saves time and money for all involved, because the alternative would be filing a lawsuit for breach of contract.  The neutral third party arbitrator is selected to determine whether the contract was violated and what the appropriate remedy would be for any such violation.  The arbitrator is confined to the terms of the agreement, and may not 'dispense his/her own brand of industrial justice.'  However, labor law has always included the concept of past practice.... meaning, the agreement between the parties does not just include the written words, but also mutually agreed upon, consistently applied practices over the years.  SB5 limits the authority of these arbitrators to the strict written word of the contract and prohibits them from enforcing past practice.

 

2.  Arbitration is also used for resolving impasse in negotiations for police and fire.  Obviously, we can't have police and fire holding strikes (see Robocop) and we can't have the employer unilaterally imposing terms and conditions..... so the system has been to bring in a mutually selected third party neutral, who examines the last, best offer from each side on each issue and must pick between the two.  This person is commonly referred to as a conciliator and does not have discretion to find a 'middle ground'.  He/she must pick between the City's offer and the union's offer on each issue submitted.  Once his/her award is issued, the parties are bound and the contract is finalized.  SB5 would eliminate this process and instead submit the disputes to the legislative body for final resolution.   

By no means am I in favor of this bill, but for the record, political subdivisions (cities and school districts) in Ohio exist at the pleasure of the state.  There is no city or school district sovereignty.  The state can and does tell these subdivisions what they are allowed to do.  It's not at all like the system that (in theory supposedly) exists between the Federal government and states. 

When was Ohio Const. Art. XVIII, Sec. 3 repealed? 

Apparently we're interpreting that much differently.  At the very least I hope we can agree that it doesn't nearly offer the same level of sovereignty that the U.S. Constitution offers the states. 

 

Here's another can of worms I'll open: As I mentioned above, I'm fairly certain that municipalities operate at the will of the state, meaning they can be dissolved, combined, etc. as the state decides.  Well, if I'm wrong about that, I'm certain someone on this board will know for sure.  But I do know that that is definitely the case for school districts.

Municipal corporations operate at the will of their electors.  If the electors choose to incorporate and draft a charter, the provisions of that charter may conflict with State law in all matters of local concern.

 

But in an attempt to redirect the conversation, my point is that State law can and should set 'floors' for employment matters.  That is the one explicit exception to the Home Rule amendment in our constitution.  It can and should tell the cities (and all employers) that they must pay their employees x amount of dollars.  It can and should tell the cities that they must collectively bargain with their employees.  But when the State starts setting 'ceilings', then it has overstepped its bounds.  It can't LIMIT the benefits a city wishes to give its employees.  That is a matter of purely local concern with no extraterritorial effects.  On the same token, it can't dictate how a municipal corporation and a local union resolve their disputes when the parties both desire ADR.

 

Well if the rules of internet debate apply to SB5, the anti-SB5 group just lost. I saw a "Hitler hated unions too" bumperstick on I-90 this morning.

 

First party to invoke Hitler loses. Although that is factually correct in this case.

Part of SB 5 could go into budget bill

Governor may put some parts of SB5 into state budget

Thursday, April 7, 2011 - 03:09 AM

By Joe Vardon and Jim Siegel

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

A movement might be brewing among top Republicans that could thwart a referendum on Senate Bill 5 well before Ohioans have a chance to vote on the controversial issue.

 

Gov. John Kasich and House Speaker William G. Batchelder are exploring a plan to include at least some of the just-passed law's provisions in the state budget, which probably won't be passed until late June.  Doing so would force opponents to pursue a second referendum to overturn part of the budget, Batchelder said.

. . .

 

First up are provisions guiding how a teacher's performance is measured.  They're already generally part of the bill that Kasich signed last week that limits collective bargaining for state employees - a law opposed by an organized collaboration of Democrats and unions that is moving quickly to place a referendum on the Nov. 8 ballot. 

 

If opponents get the 230,000-plus valid signatures they need by June 30, the bill would not take effect until the statewide vote.  But if some or most of the collective-bargaining changes were duplicated in the budget, that could blunt or all but eliminate the impact of the referendum.  Oddly enough, a second referendum presumably couldn't be held until November 2012 - seemingly right when Democrats would want it, beside the presidential election would be on the ballot.

 

READ MORE: http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/04/07/copy/part-of-sb-5-could-go-into-budget-bill.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

But when the State starts setting 'ceilings', then it has overstepped its bounds.  It can't LIMIT the benefits a city wishes to give its employees.  That is a matter of purely local concern with no extraterritorial effects.  On the same token, it can't dictate how a municipal corporation and a local union resolve their disputes when the parties both desire ADR. 

 

I'm not so sure about this.  If a muni pays its employees way too much, it could start a bidding war between that and other nearby munis.  And if a muni pays way too little, that could set off a race to the bottom.  Labor markets are intertwined, and players respond to the moves of other players.  That sounds like extraterritorial impact to me.

^You are really stretching it for the sake of making an argument.  Please do explain how these 'bidding wars' start relative to positions in the classified civil service.  And I also don't think you fully understand the 'extraterritorial impact' component of home-rule analysis and how/when it is used, particularly when discussing matters of predominantly local concern such as compensation for employees over and above state/federal minimums.

 

Since the pro-SB5 supporters are always trying to compare public sector to private sector, imagine if Uncle Sam deemed from his 'bully pulpit' in Washington that your wages/benefits are too high and passed a law which capped the compensation your private employer could give you.  I'm not saying that is the best analogy, but it is as good as any other you want to draw between public and private sector employment.

 

 

Biggest rally kicks off SB 5 repeal campaign

About 11,000 demonstrate on the Statehouse lawn for collective bargaining for Ohio's public employees

Sunday, April 10, 2011 

By Jim Siegel, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

With chants of "We are Ohio," an estimated 11,000 union supporters rallied at the Statehouse yesterday to launch the effort to overturn the law that would weaken public workers' bargaining power.

 

The crowd was the largest since the debate over Senate Bill 5 began in February.  Many also signed up to help collect the 231,000 signatures needed to get a referendum on the November ballot.

 

READ MORE: http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/04/10/copy/biggest-rally-kicks-off-sb-5-repeal-campaign.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

If this gets on the ballot, things are going to be very interesting come election time.  You will see some strange bedfellows, I think.  There are going to be some Republicans with hard choices to make--much like State Sen. Seitz from Cincinnati has done so far. 

This is gonna get ugly..This will be a central campaign theme for years to come and huge money from all over the country will be poured into Ohio on both sides of the issue.  This is essentially a national battleground for this issue, not Wisconsin.

 

Kasich has got to be kicking himself for trying getting this passed with zero negotiations, especially with firefighters and police included.  If this gets on the ballot, I dont see any chance of SB5 passing.

 

The unions were willing to negotiate, and contribute more yet Kasich wanted it all to go his way.  Now he's likely to end up with nothing. 

 

If and when it is repealed, Kasich ruins his credibility for future plans - even among his own party.  It's looking like in 2012, Ohio will be a very blue state adding more disagreement to his plans. I think what we are going to see is Kasich speed up everything in his agenda over the next year and a half

 

On top of that, the National GOP is not happy with Kasich.  Ohio obviously is a key battleground state for the Presidential Election and no republican has ever won the White House without Ohio.  Kasich is singlehandedly turning lifelong republicans into democrats. 

People are more fickle than you think.  The balance between the parties can swing in a heartbeat.  That is why it was so critical for Kasich not to delay.  Because he was able to push, cram, ram it through, the referendum, if there is one, will be on the 2011 ballot.  If he would have waited any longer, than it would have been placed on the 2012 ballot and the RNC would have shat itself.

What was the concern with arbitration? Was there a feeling that they sided with labor too much?

 

I just came accross some interesting statistics with regard to this.  Since the recession, between 2008-2010, 4394 safety force contracts were negotiated.  Only 69 of those went to binding arbitration.  Of those disputes that involved health care provisions, the Conciliator/Arbitrator sided with the employer 82.6% of the time.

Safety forces decry bargaining law, state budget cuts

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/05/safety_forces_decry_bargaining.html

I'd be more supportive of the repeal of SB5, but the Cincinnati FOP and fire union are actively campaigning to keep Cincinnati from getting a streetcar system because they worry (falsely I believe) that the operating costs will take money out of their pockets.  It is really had to be supportive of unions when they are not supportive of the city they serve.

I think it is a stretch to say that because a union has taken a stance against one particular infrastructure project that they "are not supportive of the city."  Regardless, the unions will still be around and just as loud whether SB5 stays or goes.  This is more about the individual worker and the level of service provided than anything else.  You shouldn't expect the unions to dissolve, but you should expect less cops of the street, less firefighters on the responding apparatus, less apparatus, larger response times, and less qualified job applicant pools if SB5 stands.  For relatively safe, crime/hazard-free exurbia, it makes sense.  For the urban areas, this could really have a detrimental effect.  So, in my opinion, the question becomes whether you yourself want to be supportive of your city or whether you would rather be spiteful to the unions for their stance on an unrelated issue.